"Deep Thoughts": Cheny, Federal land, blah, blah, blan

[zekeskar]

Not claiming to have any answers, but just some thoughts ...

Cheny: why aren't we absolutely pilloring him - for being such a stupid and reckless SOB. What a TREMENDOUS disservice he's done hunting and shooting sports. Joe public is looking at this and thinking - it's a dangerous sport populated by reckless idiots. And to in any way imply that it is in any way normal and accepatable - the stupid and dangerous thing he did with a firearm, is just not right. If anyone I knew did this, I'd be pissed and very critical of that person. I know it was an accident, and accidents happen, but when hunting, "accidents" are usually preventable and careless or clueless hunters need to be excoriated big time.

Think about it, what would you and the "pundits" be saying if it were the devils Clinton, Gore or Kerry who had accidently shot a hunting companion? You'd be absolutely frying his a$$ (whoever did it) , believe me. Cheny is being treated by kid gloves becasuse hunters are generally conservative and tend to ignore errors by their chosen politicians, and are hyper critical of "liberals".

Federal land. It's funny for me to hear "conservative" hunters criticise the government for this. Believe me, I agree that the governmetn shouuldn't be selling public land, and I agree that there should be more, not less, public land for hunting access. But it is more conservative to believe that the government should own less land, not more. Think about your attitude when you hear of people wanting the public/government to set aside land or dedicate land for other purposes like non consumptive uses of game (watching for example), or other non shooting recreation (hiking, camping).

The state of finances the federal government: This is whatiscausing this discussion of selling land. Who is in charge? Why is the federal government spending so damned much money? Try to blame it on the liberals, but bottom line is that this Republican administration and Congress has expanded so much in the federal governmentand the war (whether right or wrong) is costing the nation a FORTUNE. It is a HUGE expense that is severely draining resources from other important things the government could be doing to protect us, improve our children's opportunties, and improve our nations economic strength. We really need to think about whether it's worth it to our national security. Think of what billions and billions (and billions and billions)of dollars could be used for if other strategies for fighting true terrorism were pursued.

[Charlie P]

Good post.

[Mizzouhunter]

It just illustrates that some people will put party politics over the greater good for society or their individual good for that matter.

[burniegoeasily]

Ive felt the same way., What really burns me is how some right wingers are playing it off as "the normal old hunting accident, It happens everyday, so what". [:@][:@]

[Alsatian]

zekestar:

On Cheney's shooting . . . it was an accident. Maybe I would have beat up on a Democrat in the same situation. I'm not perfect, that is for sure, and I might succumb to pettiness in that situation. But accidents happen. Any hunter who says they are too safe and their procedures just couldn't ever allow this to happen, I say BS. Accidents happen. Bridges that shouldn't break do break. Dams that shouldn't burst do burst. Nuclear plants that should never fail do fail. This is the real world. Hunters who (1) are not reckless and(2) who have taken hunter safety courses, still have hunting accidents.

On the subject of government financing. I sure don't like selling off national lands. Partly this is because I want to have the opportunity of using these lands, and partly because I resent the fact that the folks who will buy these lands are fat cats who will get a bargain basement price relative to the true value of the land.

Here is another interesting suggestion for thinking. There are all kinds of measures that might be taken to make ourselves more secure. There are different price tags associated with the different courses of action and different side effects of the different courses of action. Could a case be made that the course of war in Iraq is taken because the right people profit most from that course of action? Large defense contractors? Who profits from making a secure border with Mexico? Who profits from checking containers entering US ports more carefully? War in Iraq took place -- precious little action taking place to secure the border with Mexico or the containers entering through US ports. From another perspective, what are the side effects of locking down the border with Mexico and checking containers entering US ports? Maybe very little. What are the side effects of war in Iraq? Maybe lots. Maybe a shift in oil politics. Maybe a shift in allignment of business interests. Maybe advantages for US businesses and disadvantages for French and Russian business interests (who most decried our "unilateralism" in Iraq?).

Call me cynical, but I think it is difficult to overestimate the role of greed and money in politics. I don't know what I think about these issues, I'm just throwing out a bone for people to chew on and think about. Could the selection of one course of action from many be motivated not by the superiority of that course of action for securing our safety but rather the profits of the few? Think of government spending as funneling money from the pockets of the tax payers to . . . someone else. Who? The bigger and more intense is the spending, the more money rubs off, it seems to me.

I'm a supporter of the action in Iraq. But still, why aren't we securing our border with Mexico? It seems there are some aspects of our security situation that aren't being addressed.

[James B]

I don't think anyone is all conservative or all liberal. We all have our thoughts on things regardless of how we consider ourselves leaning. I am against almost any gun control. I am against abortion for any reason. I am against the sale of public land because once its gone its gone and as mentioned above it will be fat cats who end up with the land. I am against the death penalty that and abnortion to me is cold blooded premeditaded murder. I am for the Minimum wage. I am against welfare if there is any way a person can earn that money. I am against flag burning. I am against illegal immigation. I am for a limited time workers permit. I am against anything but english as our national language. I am for the Iraq war and Iran as well if needed. I am pretty much a supporter of most of what the current adminisrtaion is doing. I am for the wire tapping. I am against unlimited extension of the Patriot act. I don't see any reason the cheney accident even needed reporting as it had no effect on affairs of state. I am for smoking bans in public places, This because it stiks like hell and burns my eyes and nose I am for prayer in schools. I am pretty much Anti ACLU. I am anti UN. We should throw them out. Am I liberal or conservative?

I would almost rather be shot than vote for a Democrat. Maybe thats not common sense but as a party they tend to support gun control which is my number one issue. This because I think the second ammendment quarantees all else.

[hillbillyhunter1]

I think the Cheney deal was an accident. I don't think anyone can say anything about safe/unsafe hunting practices unless they were there or no someone that wasthere andwould be truthful.

Whenever I've heard of people on the local level having an accident, That's all I needed to know, to be concerned about those that were involved on both sides. After that you never knew what all kind of stories will pop up as to what happened. Unless I eventually had a RELIABLE personal source to get the true story, it was enough just to have a general concern for fellow hunters.

What I do think is that Cheney should be at work night and day (like a rat in a wheel) with no time for hunting untill we see some real positive results in ANYTHING. Something that we can all agree on that's actually going good (except for Historic Public Land Policies) in our National Politics. C'mon, Anything that(ok not all) the biggest majority can say "good job" about.It just feels likewe have to change gears somewhere.

[mr-pirk]

Zekeskar, it seems to me that you misnamed the thread. "œDeep Thoughts"�, I don"™t even think so.

"œwhy aren't we[/b] (my embolden) absolutely pillaring him"�
Your post seems to imply that those who don"™t agree with your deep insight must be biased and that bias is so strong that it has twisted any point of view they might offer.

You offered zero proof of bias concerning the majority of members on this forum.

To the contrary you have offered an abundance of proof of your own bias;

"œfor being such a stupid and reckless SOB"� and "œTREMENDOUS disservice"� and "œpopulated by reckless idiots"� (I know you didn"™t call the VP an idiot, you simply said "œJoe Public"�. Surely you[/i][/b] don"™t think or mean to imply that the VP is an idiot.) and "œcareless or clueless hunters"�.

You say the VP has been treated with kids gloves by the ???... this forum in general?? (I don"™t think so at all) the news media in general?? (Show me) the political pundits?? (That should be the easiest claim you have made to prove, let"™s see your proof).

Your tangent concerning the sale of federal lands, I am assuming it is regarding The Mind"™s thread.

Did you somehow miss the description of the land that was being offered for sale? I know The Mind did.

As to your last paragraph, it seems to be implying that the federal government is selling off public land in order to finance the war on terrorist.
The way it is written it is kind of hard to determine what point you are trying to make.

Making the leap of faith that, that was the point you were so poorly trying to make;

"œThe state of finances the federal government: This is whatiscausing this discussion of selling land"�.

John Q. Public finances both the federal and state levels of government. Are you trying to suggest that the states should be in charge of federal lands?
Are you trying to suggest that the relative miniscule amount of money the government would gain from the proposed sales would somehow be seen by GWB as the "œmake or break"� for the continued war on terrorist?

"œWhy is the federal government spending so damned much money?"�

That sir is a very good question and the subject of much debate on this forum.


The rest of your last paragraph is even more confusing than most of your post;

You seem to be implying that the war against terrorist is just too costly to future taxpayers to be worth doing OR that it"™s not. Which is it?

You say that, the way, the billions and billions have been spent they haven"™t been effectively spent.
I agree. How the money has been spent has been the subject of much debate on this forum.

The better debate IMO would be;

Who should be footing the bill in the first place?

Why should American John Q. Public be saddled alone with the bill for fixing problems in the Middle East (Iraq at the moment) so that the rest of the world can rest better at night?

Just why isn"™t it right to spend Iraq oil money on rebuilding Iraq? Because we blew it up?

What about the entire infrastructure that was junk before we got there?

What about the fact that had Saddam complied with the UN mandates none of this would have happened?

What about the world/Iraq being better off with out Saddam being in power?

There is much more to the issue"¦. Not sure you would grasp it though.

Charlie P "œGood post"� somehow I would like to think you made that comment "œtongue in cheek"�, but somehow I don"™t think so.

Thanks
Mr-Pirk

[North Texan]

The Cheney accident was just that, an accident. I don't see how crucifying anybody for an accident is going to make things any better. It isn't going to unshoot anyone, and it isn't going to deter future accidents, either.

As for federal land, I oppose selling it.It would help federal finances about like a band-aid would fix a water-main. If it is like any other sale involving politicians, the politicians would pocket some money, their owners would get public land dirt cheap, and the rest of us would get the shaft.

Nobody in the federal government knows how to cut spending. Too many debts to the people that got them elected, and then there is also all that money they have to spend on what they perceive as keeping them popular enough to keep the popular vote.

[zekeskar]

Huh? Better run the spell checker on your name.